Reflections on Modernism

Read more »

TFTD: Brief Thoughts on the Movement to Recall the Youcat

There's a movement out there to "recall" the Youcat on grounds that it's filled with errors which will mislead the youth.

Having been working my way through it, and comparing it to the arguments of those who oppose it I'd have to say this:

I'd rather have the youth inspired by the Youcat than by the attempts at theology of those who oppose it.

TFTD: Brief Thoughts on the Movement to Recall the Youcat

There's a movement out there to "recall" the Youcat on grounds that it's filled with errors which will mislead the youth.

Having been working my way through it, and comparing it to the arguments of those who oppose it I'd have to say this:

I'd rather have the youth inspired by the Youcat than by the attempts at theology of those who oppose it.

Signs of Counterfeit Catholicism

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You traverse sea and land to make one convert, and when that happens you make him a child of Gehenna twice as much as yourselves. (Matthew 23:15)

Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind… (Acts 15:24)

Preliminary Note: This article does not have any specific blogger in mind when writing this.  Nor am I judging the state of any person's soul.  I am merely stating that certain behavior is wrong, whether the person who holds to such beliefs does so sincerely or not.

Introduction

There are a growing number of Catholics who were perhaps once less informed and less diligent in their faith and have been granted the grace to seek to grow in their faith and to be more steadfast.  They recognize that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ and seek to grow more faithful.  Yet we do see disputes on the internet.  Certain bloggers say that true Catholics must heed [X] while others say [X] is a modernist heresy.  This leaves the Catholic seeking to be faithful in a quandary.  What are they to make of these disputes?

The Mark of the Counterfeit Catholic

I firmly believe we have a sure sign which shows us whose presentation of the Catholic faith is counterfeit:  If the blogger or writer sets himself or herself as a judge of the Magisterium, they are not authentic, but counterfeit.

Christ Gives the Church His Authority

It is undeniable for anyone who would be authentically Catholic that Jesus Christ linked Himself with His Church.  He placed His Church into the hands of the Apostles with Peter as the visible head of the Church, saying that what they bound on Earth would be bound in Heaven (Matt 16:19, Matt: 18:18).  He made clear that those who rejected them rejected Him (Luke 10:16), and that if any would not listen to the Church, they were to be treated as a tax collector (Matt 18:17).

Since He said these things and also told us that if we love Him we will keep His commandments (John 14:15), and that if we keep His commandments we will abide in His love (John 15:10) it follows that in order to follow Christ, we must follow the Church.

Finally, Jesus provides us with a graphic example of being tied to His Church in Acts 9:

^{1 }Now Saul, still breathing murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest

^2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, that, if he should find any men or women who belonged to the Way, he might bring them back to Jerusalem in chains.

^3 On his journey, as he was nearing Damascus, a light from the sky suddenly flashed around him.

^4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”

^5 He said, “Who are you, sir?” The reply came, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.

Note He did not say, "Why are you persecuting my people?"  He said "why are you persecuting me?"  An attack on Christ's Church is an attack on Christ.

In short, Jesus established a Church in which those to whom He entrusted it were to have the authority to govern it and to teach, and made clear that a rejection of those to whom He gave this authority was a rejection of Him.

The Arrogance of Those Who Judge the Magisterium

Yet in spite of this testimony, we have certain people and groups who claim to be authentically Catholic and yet dare to say that recent popes have taught error and that the Bishops in communion with the Pope are not to be listened to.  Such people have the arrogance to make themselves an authority and an arbiter between God and His Church, declaring themselves to be in the right and the Church to be in the wrong.  They say this even though Jesus Christ promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt 16:18) and that He would always be with His Church (Matt 28:20).

This arrogance is not simply found in the sedevacantists (those who deny we have a valid Pope) and the SSPX.  We see many out there who argue one can be a faithful Catholic and reject Vatican II.  We see people out there who accuse modern Church teachings to be "modernist" simply because it does not square with their personal readings of the individual who judges the Church.

Ironically, such persons become little different than the liberal dissenters who deny the authority of the Church to teach on matters on sexual morality.  They pick and choose what is "authentically" Catholic and judge the Magisterium based on this arbitrary decision.

I would now like to discuss certain statements which can be seen as giant warnings of counterfeit Catholicism.

1) "I'm Not Disobedient.  I'm Being Faithful to Past Popes and Councils."

Consider this statement a giant red flag.  Such a person claims that the current Magisterial teaching on a subject is contrary to past teachings of the Church.  However, such a person is making an assumption which needs to be proven: That he or she correctly interprets the Patristics, the Popes and the Councils while the current Magisterium does not.

This is essentially a Catholicized form of the Private Interpretation which certain Protestants rely on and is essentially a "No True Scotsman" fallacy:

1. No TRUE Catholic Holds [X].
2. The Magisterium holds [X].
3. Therefore the Magisterium is not truly Catholic.

No matter what attempt a person may make to show why this individual is wrong, the individual will reject it as not being "truly Catholic."

What such things ignore is twofold: That he properly understands the past teachings in context and that he properly understands the current teaching.  If the individual errs on even one of the two, any judgments he makes on whether a current magisterial teaching is valid must be flawed.

Even without such a consideration, Catholics seeking to be authentic can justly ask the person judging the Magisterium the following:

On What Basis Do YOU Claim the Authority to Authentically Interpret Church Teachings Against the Church?

The Popes can point to their succession from Peter and the Bishops can point to their succession from the Apostles.  The individual claiming to judge the Magisterium can do neither.

Blessed Pope John Paul II had pointed out the errors which leads to this sort of mindset:

4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".(5)

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(6)

(Ecclesia Dei #4)

It is an important point.  The Magisterial teaching of the Church did not freeze in 1962.  Nor did it freeze in 1870 or the end of the Council of Trent.  Tradition is LIVING.  Our understanding grows.  The Church has never said [X] before Vatican II and then [Not-X] after Vatican II.  The Church will never deny she is the True Church.  However, she will grow in understanding as to what this means in terms of the power of the state and decree that the state does not possess the authority to force men to do what these men believe to be evil.

2) "History Shows Past Popes Have Had to Be Corrected"

This is deceptive.  Certain Popes have of course had personal moral failings, but they have NEVER been corrected when it came to making a formal teaching on faith and morals.  This applies to personal writings.  Pope Benedict XVI wrote Jesus of Nazareth as a private person.  He wrote Caritas in Veritate as the Pope.

Essentially this is the "We had to destroy the village in order to liberate it" statement.  To defend a personal view of what the Catholic faith is, it ends up denying the authority of the Pope and the Bishops in order to do so.

We can then apply a reductio ad absurdum to their claim:

If the Vatican II and Post-Vatican II Magisterium fell into error, how do we know the Pre-Vatican II Church didn't?

If Christ failed to protect the Church after 1962, what assurance do we have He protected the Church before 1962?

3) "Church Teaching [X] is not ex cathedra and therefore is not binding"

This one is probably the most dishonest argument and one which actually supplies ammunition to anyone (Atheist, Protestant, Modernist) who wants to attack the authority of the Church.  Because it attempts to limit binding teaching to the infallible definitions and claims anything else is not binding, anyone who wants to attack a Church teaching can simply demand to see an ex cathedra (from the Chair) declaration.  In fact certain dissenters have made use of this in trying to deny the authority of the Church teaching on contraception ("Well, Humanae Vitae wasn't infallible so I don't have to obey it!").

This sort of view is a distortion of Church teaching.  The infallible definition is a strict definition used to make a specific statement about what must be believed.  However the infallible declaration is not the only way the Church teaches.  In fact the Church calls it an exercise of extraordinary (extraordinarius, from extra ordinem ‘outside the normal course of events) Magisterium.  The Church uses the infallible declaration in rare circumstances when she thinks it is necessary.

However, the Church has never taught that the Ex cathedra is the sole method of teaching.

Pope Pius XII warned in Humani Generis:

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

In other words, when the Church teaches in official documents, one cannot reject it on the grounds it isn't ex cathedra.

Moreover Vatican I in 1870 decreed:

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world. (Pastor Aeternus Chapter 2)

This brings us to the Catechism of the Catholic Church which teaches:

2033 The Magisterium of the Pastors of the Church in moral matters is ordinarily exercised in catechesis and preaching, with the help of the works of theologians and spiritual authors. Thus from generation to generation, under the aegis and vigilance of the pastors, the "deposit" of Christian moral teaching has been handed on, a deposit composed of a characteristic body of rules, commandments, and virtues proceeding from faith in Christ and animated by charity. Alongside the Creed and the Our Father, the basis for this catechesis has traditionally been the Decalogue which sets out the principles of moral life valid for all men.

So we can see that the teaching authority (the Magisterium) of the Church is ordinarily carried out in the catechesis and preaching – NOT in ex cathedra statements.  Yes that is the highest level of teaching (See #2035).  But it does not negate the others.  Even in "merely" disciplinary matters the Church is to be heeded with docility:

2037 The law of God entrusted to the Church is taught to the faithful as the way of life and truth. the faithful therefore have the right to be instructed in the divine saving precepts that purify judgment and, with grace, heal wounded human reason.⁷⁹ They have the duty of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church. Even if they concern disciplinary matters, these determinations call for docility in charity.

I believe this adequately shows that the appeal to ex cathedra alone is a denial of the full authority of the teaching authority of the Church.

Basically the person who uses this argument to deny Church authority in fact makes use of the fallacy of bifurcation: Either [Ex Cathedra] or [Not Binding].  However, if there is an option other than these, then the either-or is a false choice.  Since the Church makes clear that it is NOT Either [Ex Cathedra] or [Not Binding] we can see such an argument shows the one who employs it is making a false statement (whether knowingly or not) about the authority of Church teaching.

Of course the fact that such a person makes a false statement shows he or she is not qualified to judge the Magisterium.

We can actually take the "Where does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura?" argument and apply it to these would-be judges and ask:

What ex cathedra statement teaches that only an ex cathedra statement is binding?

Conclusion

Jesus said, "I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing. (John 15:5)"  Since we have already seen above that Jesus links His authority to that of the Church, it follows that without His Church we can do nothing.  This is not because of any special property the Church has in her own right – it is solely because the Church receives her authority from Christ who sends the Church forth (see Matt 28:18).

Because of this, when one rejects the Church in a matter where she claims authority, such a person cannot claim to authentically represent the Church and the Catholic seeking guidance should recognize that such a would-be teacher is in fact peddling a counterfeit Catholicism.

Parenthesis: Does the Arnobius of Sicca Blog Practices What it Preaches?

I certainly do my best to do so.  I claim no authority whatsoever to judge the Magisterium.  Individual bishops may concern me at times and I may at times struggle to understand the teachings of why the Church acts as she does.  However, I want to make it clear that I never want this blog to be viewed in opposition to the Magisterium.  If (GOD FORBID) I should ever make a statement which seems to be contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium (I assure you this would never be deliberate), then please go with the Magisterium and do not invoke me as a source against it.

I believe I personally have no authority to bind and loose, and this blog exists to point to the authority of the Church as well as to defend the teaching authority from those who reject it.

If I seem to claim any other source of authority for myself in any of my writings (past, present or future) I apologize for writing unclearly.

Signs of Counterfeit Catholicism

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You traverse sea and land to make one convert, and when that happens you make him a child of Gehenna twice as much as yourselves. (Matthew 23:15)

Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind… (Acts 15:24)

Preliminary Note: This article does not have any specific blogger in mind when writing this.  Nor am I judging the state of any person's soul.  I am merely stating that certain behavior is wrong, whether the person who holds to such beliefs does so sincerely or not.

Introduction

There are a growing number of Catholics who were perhaps once less informed and less diligent in their faith and have been granted the grace to seek to grow in their faith and to be more steadfast.  They recognize that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ and seek to grow more faithful.  Yet we do see disputes on the internet.  Certain bloggers say that true Catholics must heed [X] while others say [X] is a modernist heresy.  This leaves the Catholic seeking to be faithful in a quandary.  What are they to make of these disputes?

The Mark of the Counterfeit Catholic

I firmly believe we have a sure sign which shows us whose presentation of the Catholic faith is counterfeit:  If the blogger or writer sets himself or herself as a judge of the Magisterium, they are not authentic, but counterfeit.

Christ Gives the Church His Authority

It is undeniable for anyone who would be authentically Catholic that Jesus Christ linked Himself with His Church.  He placed His Church into the hands of the Apostles with Peter as the visible head of the Church, saying that what they bound on Earth would be bound in Heaven (Matt 16:19, Matt: 18:18).  He made clear that those who rejected them rejected Him (Luke 10:16), and that if any would not listen to the Church, they were to be treated as a tax collector (Matt 18:17).

Since He said these things and also told us that if we love Him we will keep His commandments (John 14:15), and that if we keep His commandments we will abide in His love (John 15:10) it follows that in order to follow Christ, we must follow the Church.

Finally, Jesus provides us with a graphic example of being tied to His Church in Acts 9:

^{1 }Now Saul, still breathing murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest

^2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, that, if he should find any men or women who belonged to the Way, he might bring them back to Jerusalem in chains.

^3 On his journey, as he was nearing Damascus, a light from the sky suddenly flashed around him.

^4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”

^5 He said, “Who are you, sir?” The reply came, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.

Note He did not say, "Why are you persecuting my people?"  He said "why are you persecuting me?"  An attack on Christ's Church is an attack on Christ.

In short, Jesus established a Church in which those to whom He entrusted it were to have the authority to govern it and to teach, and made clear that a rejection of those to whom He gave this authority was a rejection of Him.

The Arrogance of Those Who Judge the Magisterium

Yet in spite of this testimony, we have certain people and groups who claim to be authentically Catholic and yet dare to say that recent popes have taught error and that the Bishops in communion with the Pope are not to be listened to.  Such people have the arrogance to make themselves an authority and an arbiter between God and His Church, declaring themselves to be in the right and the Church to be in the wrong.  They say this even though Jesus Christ promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt 16:18) and that He would always be with His Church (Matt 28:20).

This arrogance is not simply found in the sedevacantists (those who deny we have a valid Pope) and the SSPX.  We see many out there who argue one can be a faithful Catholic and reject Vatican II.  We see people out there who accuse modern Church teachings to be "modernist" simply because it does not square with their personal readings of the individual who judges the Church.

Ironically, such persons become little different than the liberal dissenters who deny the authority of the Church to teach on matters on sexual morality.  They pick and choose what is "authentically" Catholic and judge the Magisterium based on this arbitrary decision.

I would now like to discuss certain statements which can be seen as giant warnings of counterfeit Catholicism.

1) "I'm Not Disobedient.  I'm Being Faithful to Past Popes and Councils."

Consider this statement a giant red flag.  Such a person claims that the current Magisterial teaching on a subject is contrary to past teachings of the Church.  However, such a person is making an assumption which needs to be proven: That he or she correctly interprets the Patristics, the Popes and the Councils while the current Magisterium does not.

This is essentially a Catholicized form of the Private Interpretation which certain Protestants rely on and is essentially a "No True Scotsman" fallacy:

1. No TRUE Catholic Holds [X].
2. The Magisterium holds [X].
3. Therefore the Magisterium is not truly Catholic.

No matter what attempt a person may make to show why this individual is wrong, the individual will reject it as not being "truly Catholic."

What such things ignore is twofold: That he properly understands the past teachings in context and that he properly understands the current teaching.  If the individual errs on even one of the two, any judgments he makes on whether a current magisterial teaching is valid must be flawed.

Even without such a consideration, Catholics seeking to be authentic can justly ask the person judging the Magisterium the following:

On What Basis Do YOU Claim the Authority to Authentically Interpret Church Teachings Against the Church?

The Popes can point to their succession from Peter and the Bishops can point to their succession from the Apostles.  The individual claiming to judge the Magisterium can do neither.

Blessed Pope John Paul II had pointed out the errors which leads to this sort of mindset:

4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".(5)

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(6)

(Ecclesia Dei #4)

It is an important point.  The Magisterial teaching of the Church did not freeze in 1962.  Nor did it freeze in 1870 or the end of the Council of Trent.  Tradition is LIVING.  Our understanding grows.  The Church has never said [X] before Vatican II and then [Not-X] after Vatican II.  The Church will never deny she is the True Church.  However, she will grow in understanding as to what this means in terms of the power of the state and decree that the state does not possess the authority to force men to do what these men believe to be evil.

2) "History Shows Past Popes Have Had to Be Corrected"

This is deceptive.  Certain Popes have of course had personal moral failings, but they have NEVER been corrected when it came to making a formal teaching on faith and morals.  This applies to personal writings.  Pope Benedict XVI wrote Jesus of Nazareth as a private person.  He wrote Caritas in Veritate as the Pope.

Essentially this is the "We had to destroy the village in order to liberate it" statement.  To defend a personal view of what the Catholic faith is, it ends up denying the authority of the Pope and the Bishops in order to do so.

We can then apply a reductio ad absurdum to their claim:

If the Vatican II and Post-Vatican II Magisterium fell into error, how do we know the Pre-Vatican II Church didn't?

If Christ failed to protect the Church after 1962, what assurance do we have He protected the Church before 1962?

3) "Church Teaching [X] is not ex cathedra and therefore is not binding"

This one is probably the most dishonest argument and one which actually supplies ammunition to anyone (Atheist, Protestant, Modernist) who wants to attack the authority of the Church.  Because it attempts to limit binding teaching to the infallible definitions and claims anything else is not binding, anyone who wants to attack a Church teaching can simply demand to see an ex cathedra (from the Chair) declaration.  In fact certain dissenters have made use of this in trying to deny the authority of the Church teaching on contraception ("Well, Humanae Vitae wasn't infallible so I don't have to obey it!").

This sort of view is a distortion of Church teaching.  The infallible definition is a strict definition used to make a specific statement about what must be believed.  However the infallible declaration is not the only way the Church teaches.  In fact the Church calls it an exercise of extraordinary (extraordinarius, from extra ordinem ‘outside the normal course of events) Magisterium.  The Church uses the infallible declaration in rare circumstances when she thinks it is necessary.

However, the Church has never taught that the Ex cathedra is the sole method of teaching.

Pope Pius XII warned in Humani Generis:

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

In other words, when the Church teaches in official documents, one cannot reject it on the grounds it isn't ex cathedra.

Moreover Vatican I in 1870 decreed:

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world. (Pastor Aeternus Chapter 2)

This brings us to the Catechism of the Catholic Church which teaches:

2033 The Magisterium of the Pastors of the Church in moral matters is ordinarily exercised in catechesis and preaching, with the help of the works of theologians and spiritual authors. Thus from generation to generation, under the aegis and vigilance of the pastors, the "deposit" of Christian moral teaching has been handed on, a deposit composed of a characteristic body of rules, commandments, and virtues proceeding from faith in Christ and animated by charity. Alongside the Creed and the Our Father, the basis for this catechesis has traditionally been the Decalogue which sets out the principles of moral life valid for all men.

So we can see that the teaching authority (the Magisterium) of the Church is ordinarily carried out in the catechesis and preaching – NOT in ex cathedra statements.  Yes that is the highest level of teaching (See #2035).  But it does not negate the others.  Even in "merely" disciplinary matters the Church is to be heeded with docility:

2037 The law of God entrusted to the Church is taught to the faithful as the way of life and truth. the faithful therefore have the right to be instructed in the divine saving precepts that purify judgment and, with grace, heal wounded human reason.⁷⁹ They have the duty of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church. Even if they concern disciplinary matters, these determinations call for docility in charity.

I believe this adequately shows that the appeal to ex cathedra alone is a denial of the full authority of the teaching authority of the Church.

Basically the person who uses this argument to deny Church authority in fact makes use of the fallacy of bifurcation: Either [Ex Cathedra] or [Not Binding].  However, if there is an option other than these, then the either-or is a false choice.  Since the Church makes clear that it is NOT Either [Ex Cathedra] or [Not Binding] we can see such an argument shows the one who employs it is making a false statement (whether knowingly or not) about the authority of Church teaching.

Of course the fact that such a person makes a false statement shows he or she is not qualified to judge the Magisterium.

We can actually take the "Where does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura?" argument and apply it to these would-be judges and ask:

What ex cathedra statement teaches that only an ex cathedra statement is binding?

Conclusion

Jesus said, "I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing. (John 15:5)"  Since we have already seen above that Jesus links His authority to that of the Church, it follows that without His Church we can do nothing.  This is not because of any special property the Church has in her own right – it is solely because the Church receives her authority from Christ who sends the Church forth (see Matt 28:18).

Because of this, when one rejects the Church in a matter where she claims authority, such a person cannot claim to authentically represent the Church and the Catholic seeking guidance should recognize that such a would-be teacher is in fact peddling a counterfeit Catholicism.

Parenthesis: Does the Arnobius of Sicca Blog Practices What it Preaches?

I certainly do my best to do so.  I claim no authority whatsoever to judge the Magisterium.  Individual bishops may concern me at times and I may at times struggle to understand the teachings of why the Church acts as she does.  However, I want to make it clear that I never want this blog to be viewed in opposition to the Magisterium.  If (GOD FORBID) I should ever make a statement which seems to be contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium (I assure you this would never be deliberate), then please go with the Magisterium and do not invoke me as a source against it.

I believe I personally have no authority to bind and loose, and this blog exists to point to the authority of the Church as well as to defend the teaching authority from those who reject it.

If I seem to claim any other source of authority for myself in any of my writings (past, present or future) I apologize for writing unclearly.

TFTD: The ME Magisterium

Read more »

TFTD: The ME Magisterium

Read more »

TFTD: Cafeteria Catholicism Isn't Only Liberal

Preliminary Note:

It is not my interest to defend Bishop Hubbard and claim everything in Albany is hunky-dory.  It is my interest in speaking out against what seems to be a growing distraction among Catholics seeking to be faithful to the Church – a distraction which seems to set aside Magisterial authority whenever one does not like the political implications of what is said.

Whenever Catholics judge a teaching from their political slant instead of judging a political view from Church teaching, there Catholics have lost their way.

Those of us who seek to be faithful to the teachings of the Church need to realize that dissent isn't something which only happens to others.  The Pharisees were pious men, seeking to be faithful to the teachings of the law, but their views were not in keeping with the holiness God calls us to.

I don't say any specific Catholic is guilty of this, but I do say all of us are obligated to examine our consciences daily and examine our political views to see if they are contrary to the teachings of the Church.

So any reader who thinks I am indicting any specific Catholic interprets me wrongly.

With Growing Concern

One thing the whole budget squabble brings home is that Cafeteria Catholicism isn't only a liberal thing.  Conservatives may not dissent over moral issues, but I think the issue of the social teachings of the Church are overlooked.  Moreover, I think that like liberals, conservatives also make use of the genetic fallacy, with both writing off the statement of a bishop because he is identified with a disliked political stance.

For example, Bishop Hubbard's July 26 statement to the House of Representatives is derided by some bloggers on the grounds that he is a liberal who did not act against Governor Cuomo in some of his public sins.  Maybe that accusation of liberalism is true, maybe it is not (one thing I've learned from the blogging experience is we don't always know what goes behind the scenes).  Either way, that does not mean his statement is false just because he is accused of being liberal. 

In fact, I find his three points to be in keeping with the Church teaching as a whole:

1. Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity.
2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first.
3. Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times.

In other words, budget cuts can't disproportionately affect those in need of our help.  If a cut will prevent those from receiving what is needed to survive, it is not a budget which protects human life and dignity.  I don't see anything in these points (or in the whole statement) which was not stated in Caritas in Veritate.

What we need to remember is this: There can be debate over what the best means are to be faithful to the social teaching of the Church.  There can't be debate over the Social Teaching of the Church.

We need to avoid the error of reductionism.  Just because socialistic programs in government may share certain points with the Catholic Social Teaching, it does not follow that the position spoken of by a Catholic Bishop is "nothing but" support for a socialistic program.

Now, I am not saying it is evil to be conservative (I'm sure most liberals would label me as one for example, and I think Obama's regime has been disastrous for the moral and religious state of this nation).

However, I am saying it is evil to ignore Church teaching on a subject.

Each person will have to look to the teaching of the Church and their own political views and see if there is a need for conversion .

TFTD: Cafeteria Catholicism Isn't Only Liberal

Preliminary Note:

It is not my interest to defend Bishop Hubbard and claim everything in Albany is hunky-dory.  It is my interest in speaking out against what seems to be a growing distraction among Catholics seeking to be faithful to the Church – a distraction which seems to set aside Magisterial authority whenever one does not like the political implications of what is said.

Whenever Catholics judge a teaching from their political slant instead of judging a political view from Church teaching, there Catholics have lost their way.

Those of us who seek to be faithful to the teachings of the Church need to realize that dissent isn't something which only happens to others.  The Pharisees were pious men, seeking to be faithful to the teachings of the law, but their views were not in keeping with the holiness God calls us to.

I don't say any specific Catholic is guilty of this, but I do say all of us are obligated to examine our consciences daily and examine our political views to see if they are contrary to the teachings of the Church.

So any reader who thinks I am indicting any specific Catholic interprets me wrongly.

With Growing Concern

One thing the whole budget squabble brings home is that Cafeteria Catholicism isn't only a liberal thing.  Conservatives may not dissent over moral issues, but I think the issue of the social teachings of the Church are overlooked.  Moreover, I think that like liberals, conservatives also make use of the genetic fallacy, with both writing off the statement of a bishop because he is identified with a disliked political stance.

For example, Bishop Hubbard's July 26 statement to the House of Representatives is derided by some bloggers on the grounds that he is a liberal who did not act against Governor Cuomo in some of his public sins.  Maybe that accusation of liberalism is true, maybe it is not (one thing I've learned from the blogging experience is we don't always know what goes behind the scenes).  Either way, that does not mean his statement is false just because he is accused of being liberal. 

In fact, I find his three points to be in keeping with the Church teaching as a whole:

1. Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity.
2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first.
3. Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times.

In other words, budget cuts can't disproportionately affect those in need of our help.  If a cut will prevent those from receiving what is needed to survive, it is not a budget which protects human life and dignity.  I don't see anything in these points (or in the whole statement) which was not stated in Caritas in Veritate.

What we need to remember is this: There can be debate over what the best means are to be faithful to the social teaching of the Church.  There can't be debate over the Social Teaching of the Church.

We need to avoid the error of reductionism.  Just because socialistic programs in government may share certain points with the Catholic Social Teaching, it does not follow that the position spoken of by a Catholic Bishop is "nothing but" support for a socialistic program.

Now, I am not saying it is evil to be conservative (I'm sure most liberals would label me as one for example, and I think Obama's regime has been disastrous for the moral and religious state of this nation).

However, I am saying it is evil to ignore Church teaching on a subject.

Each person will have to look to the teaching of the Church and their own political views and see if there is a need for conversion .

TFTD: What If The Antichrist Isn't What We Expect?

Antichrist 1. Person who will appear in the last days in fulfillment of apocalyptic prophecies to destroy the church and slaughter the saints of God. 2. Spirit of opposition to Christ as expressed in persecution of Christians or restrictions on the free expression of Christian faith.

Kurian, G. T. (2001). Nelson's new Christian dictionary : The authoritative resource on the Christian world. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Pubs.

Thought For the Day

I'd been reading some apocalyptic Christian fiction (the wretched Left Behind and the mediocre Father Elijah).  The general presentation of the Antichrist is a sort of charismatic liberal type who makes some modest proposals which leads the world to a Black Helicopter UN dominated world where Christians are targeted if they hold to their faith.  Many nominal Christians, in this view, are deceived and led to apostatize.

Now there's nothing necessarily wrong with this view.  It merely reflects the concern over deep moral errors the world is falling into in this time.  It also reflects the interpretation of 1 John where the antichrist is said to deny Christ.  Liberals seem to negate Christ as anything more than a good teacher for example.

Yet, would such an Antichrist really be anything more than a physical threat?  The Christian trying to be faithful would most likely immediately spurn the message.  Some might compromise out of fear and then be sorrowful.  But would such an antichrist be a threat to the salvation of Christians?

But in reading these works, I was struck with this thought.  What if the Antichrist isn't a Obama-like liberal but is instead a conservative?  What if his message isn't some sort of terrifying Fascist/Communist monolith, but is instead a conservative who merely wants us to "burn a pinch of incense" at the altar of expedience, to compromise our faith slightly.  To perhaps encourage the faithful to side with a view that appeals to our conservative beliefs but goes against Church teaching.  What if those who refused to go along with this sort of a view were the ones singled out and attacked as standing with the liberals?

Wouldn't that be a danger to many men and women trying to be faithful?  That they might be tempted to compromise slightly – especially if they were convinced the Church was filled with corruption?

Now this Thought for the Day may be completely without merit.  But I do think it is a danger to assume that the only threats to the faith come from the political Left.  Any view, whether Conservative or Liberal, which runs contrary to our faith is to be rejected.  None of us should think that "Because I am not [X], I will not be deceived."

Let us remember the warning of St. Paul:

^12 Therefore, whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall. (1 Cor. 10:12)

TFTD: What If The Antichrist Isn't What We Expect?

Antichrist 1. Person who will appear in the last days in fulfillment of apocalyptic prophecies to destroy the church and slaughter the saints of God. 2. Spirit of opposition to Christ as expressed in persecution of Christians or restrictions on the free expression of Christian faith.

Kurian, G. T. (2001). Nelson's new Christian dictionary : The authoritative resource on the Christian world. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Pubs.

Thought For the Day

I'd been reading some apocalyptic Christian fiction (the wretched Left Behind and the mediocre Father Elijah).  The general presentation of the Antichrist is a sort of charismatic liberal type who makes some modest proposals which leads the world to a Black Helicopter UN dominated world where Christians are targeted if they hold to their faith.  Many nominal Christians, in this view, are deceived and led to apostatize.

Now there's nothing necessarily wrong with this view.  It merely reflects the concern over deep moral errors the world is falling into in this time.  It also reflects the interpretation of 1 John where the antichrist is said to deny Christ.  Liberals seem to negate Christ as anything more than a good teacher for example.

Yet, would such an Antichrist really be anything more than a physical threat?  The Christian trying to be faithful would most likely immediately spurn the message.  Some might compromise out of fear and then be sorrowful.  But would such an antichrist be a threat to the salvation of Christians?

But in reading these works, I was struck with this thought.  What if the Antichrist isn't a Obama-like liberal but is instead a conservative?  What if his message isn't some sort of terrifying Fascist/Communist monolith, but is instead a conservative who merely wants us to "burn a pinch of incense" at the altar of expedience, to compromise our faith slightly.  To perhaps encourage the faithful to side with a view that appeals to our conservative beliefs but goes against Church teaching.  What if those who refused to go along with this sort of a view were the ones singled out and attacked as standing with the liberals?

Wouldn't that be a danger to many men and women trying to be faithful?  That they might be tempted to compromise slightly – especially if they were convinced the Church was filled with corruption?

Now this Thought for the Day may be completely without merit.  But I do think it is a danger to assume that the only threats to the faith come from the political Left.  Any view, whether Conservative or Liberal, which runs contrary to our faith is to be rejected.  None of us should think that "Because I am not [X], I will not be deceived."

Let us remember the warning of St. Paul:

^12 Therefore, whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall. (1 Cor. 10:12)

Thought For The Day (TFTD): Confusing Doctrine and Preference

One of the more irritating things I come across in the Catholic blogosphere is the amount of confusion there is over Doctrine vs. Preference.  We see many people throw around the accusation of heresy about things which are not in fact heretical.  There is no obstinate post-baptismal denial about some truth the Catholic faith.  There is no defiance against Church teaching.  Rather the person who throws around the accusation is elevating his or her preferences to the level of doctrine, saying in effect, "I'm right in my practice of the faith.  You do something I disagree with.  Therefore you're heretical (or blasphemous or any other invective)."

Thus people who like Marty Hagen hymns, people who receive the Eucharist in the hand, people who don't have problems with the Ordinary form of the Mass tend to be labeled as anything from heretical to being deceived about the "true" faith.

If one prefers the Gregorian Chant, reception of the Eucharist on the tongue or the Latin Mass of the 1962 missal, fine.  These are elements of Catholicism and so long as they are done from a perspective of what helps them enter a peace of mind to focus on God, that is good.

However, once it becomes an attitude of "I am superior to you!" or "anyone who disagrees is not an authentic Catholic" it is no longer good, but rather it becomes an attitude of pride.

Remember, we're not talking about people who dissent from Catholic moral teaching here.  We're not talking about the Cafeteria Catholic who claims that they are allowed to disobey the Church when she teaches about what we must and must not do.  We are talking about people who fly into a rage because the music director plays Shine Jesus Shine at Mass.

It might not be more than annoyance, but some people go so far as to accuse the magisterium of "heresy."  Such a view is dangerous indeed.  Once we make ourselves the judge of what the Church can and cannot teach, we separate ourselves from the Church when our views part ways from the Catholic teaching.

So let's remember something here…

We aren't the Pope. 

So just because we dislike a thing aesthetically does not make such a thing "wrong."  We have no authority to bind what the Church looses, nor the authority to loose what the Church binds.  If a person feels more comfortable to receive the Eucharist in the hand, and the bishop has permitted it in his diocese, you have no right to look down on that person.  Likewise, if we prefer something which the magisterial authority of the Church decides may no longer be done, the proper attitude is obedience, not defiance.

Otherwise we become guilty of true dissent… having a beam in our eye while focusing on the splinter in the eye of another.

Thought For The Day (TFTD): Confusing Doctrine and Preference

One of the more irritating things I come across in the Catholic blogosphere is the amount of confusion there is over Doctrine vs. Preference.  We see many people throw around the accusation of heresy about things which are not in fact heretical.  There is no obstinate post-baptismal denial about some truth the Catholic faith.  There is no defiance against Church teaching.  Rather the person who throws around the accusation is elevating his or her preferences to the level of doctrine, saying in effect, "I'm right in my practice of the faith.  You do something I disagree with.  Therefore you're heretical (or blasphemous or any other invective)."

Thus people who like Marty Hagen hymns, people who receive the Eucharist in the hand, people who don't have problems with the Ordinary form of the Mass tend to be labeled as anything from heretical to being deceived about the "true" faith.

If one prefers the Gregorian Chant, reception of the Eucharist on the tongue or the Latin Mass of the 1962 missal, fine.  These are elements of Catholicism and so long as they are done from a perspective of what helps them enter a peace of mind to focus on God, that is good.

However, once it becomes an attitude of "I am superior to you!" or "anyone who disagrees is not an authentic Catholic" it is no longer good, but rather it becomes an attitude of pride.

Remember, we're not talking about people who dissent from Catholic moral teaching here.  We're not talking about the Cafeteria Catholic who claims that they are allowed to disobey the Church when she teaches about what we must and must not do.  We are talking about people who fly into a rage because the music director plays Shine Jesus Shine at Mass.

It might not be more than annoyance, but some people go so far as to accuse the magisterium of "heresy."  Such a view is dangerous indeed.  Once we make ourselves the judge of what the Church can and cannot teach, we separate ourselves from the Church when our views part ways from the Catholic teaching.

So let's remember something here…

We aren't the Pope. 

So just because we dislike a thing aesthetically does not make such a thing "wrong."  We have no authority to bind what the Church looses, nor the authority to loose what the Church binds.  If a person feels more comfortable to receive the Eucharist in the hand, and the bishop has permitted it in his diocese, you have no right to look down on that person.  Likewise, if we prefer something which the magisterial authority of the Church decides may no longer be done, the proper attitude is obedience, not defiance.

Otherwise we become guilty of true dissent… having a beam in our eye while focusing on the splinter in the eye of another.

Works Alone: The Protestant Claim that Slanders and Libels Catholicism

libel

[Arnobius of Sicca note: Ugh… I meant "Libel" but typed "slander."  Edited to fix]

■ n.

1 Law the publication of a false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation. Compare with slander.

† such a statement; a written defamation.

1 Law defame by publishing a libel.

Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Introduction

I've been forcing myself to read the novel Left Behind (I figure I should be aware of famous works, even if I think they are in error), which is a story about the so-called Rapture.  As I do so, I am reminded of a theme among certain Protestants (often repeated) which is an act of libel against the Catholic Church.  That is the claim that Catholics believe we earn our salvation by doing "good works," and we are "owed" salvation if we do enough regardless of whether or not we believe in Christ.

Such a statement is so much repeated, especially among certain Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, that many would be surprised to learn we do not believe this at all.

That's right… one of the major arguments used to denounce the Catholic Church is a complete falsehood.

Some Evidence

Let's not get into an argument about whether I am "deceived" about what the Catholic Church really teaches.  We'll do this by pointing not to my own writings, but to what the Church herself says about justification, grace and works.

In terms of Justification:

1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:⁴⁰

• But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.⁴¹ (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

We believe when it comes to Grace:

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.⁴⁶

1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an "adopted son" he can henceforth call God "Father," in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.

1998 This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God's gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.⁴⁷ (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

When it comes to merit, we profess:

2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. the fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God's gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us "co-heirs" with Christ and worthy of obtaining "the promised inheritance of eternal life."⁶⁰ The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness.⁶¹ "Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due.... Our merits are God's gifts."⁶²

Nor is this merely a late change as some might accuse.  The Catechism of the Council of Trent  of the 16th century says:

For the grace of Christ is seen to abound more, inasmuch as it communicates to us not only what He merited and paid of Himself alone, but also what, as Head, He merited and paid in His members, that is, in holy and just men. Hence it can be seen how such great weight and dignity belong to the good actions of the pious. For Christ our Lord continually infuses His grace into the devout soul united to Him by charity, as the head to the members, or as the vine through the branches. This grace always precedes, accompanies and follows our good works, and without it we can have no merit, nor can we at all satisfy God.  (emphasis added)

I believe this evidence should be enough to demonstrate that we believe our justification, grace and merits come from God and (if one follows the links) even the good we do is made possible by God.

I think it should be clear that the person who claims the Catholic believes God "owes" us anything on the grounds we "earn" our salvation by doing works slanders or libels us (depending on whether the accuser speaks or writes).  We have no belief whatsoever about doing [X] amount of works or saying [Y] number of prayers will guarantee us Heaven.  We believe God calls us to be faithful to Him and carry out His commands out of love for Him.  Christ has said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15).  In a relationship of love, a person doesn't ask "How much do I have to do?"  The person who loves does what he or she does as an expression of love.

The Implication

Now the person who repeats such a claim may not be acting with malice.  He or she may sincerely believe what is said against us.

That does not let the individual off the hook however.  To repeat a claim without finding out if it is true is unjust indeed.  If I should repeat that Jones is a murderer simply on the grounds I have been told this, I am to blame for repeating a slander if Jones is innocent.

There's also another serious implication here: Protestantism has at least one false premise in its rejection of Catholicism.

Think of it.  One of the reasons of the rejection of the Catholic Church was the belief that the Church put a person on an endless and futile quest to do "enough" to earn salvation.  Yet we don't believe what we are accused of.  Thus one justification for breaking away is… unjustified.  In placing Sola Fide in opposition to "Works Alone" a straw man fallacy is committed.

1. The Catholic Church Holds [X]
2. The Anti-Catholic presents the Church as holding [Y] (a distortion of [X])
3. Position [Y] is attacked.
4. The illusion is The Catholic Church has been refuted on [X]

The truth is, the attack on [Y] is irrelevant.  The Church teaching is [X] and it is [X] which needs to be examined.

To continue to accuse the Church of [Y] is to slander or libel the Church, whether through malice or negligence.

negligence

■ n. failure to take proper care over something.

† Law breach of a duty of care which results in damage.

Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Works Alone: The Protestant Claim that Slanders and Libels Catholicism

libel

[Arnobius of Sicca note: Ugh… I meant "Libel" but typed "slander."  Edited to fix]

■ n.

1 Law the publication of a false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation. Compare with slander.

† such a statement; a written defamation.

1 Law defame by publishing a libel.

Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Introduction

I've been forcing myself to read the novel Left Behind (I figure I should be aware of famous works, even if I think they are in error), which is a story about the so-called Rapture.  As I do so, I am reminded of a theme among certain Protestants (often repeated) which is an act of libel against the Catholic Church.  That is the claim that Catholics believe we earn our salvation by doing "good works," and we are "owed" salvation if we do enough regardless of whether or not we believe in Christ.

Such a statement is so much repeated, especially among certain Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, that many would be surprised to learn we do not believe this at all.

That's right… one of the major arguments used to denounce the Catholic Church is a complete falsehood.

Some Evidence

Let's not get into an argument about whether I am "deceived" about what the Catholic Church really teaches.  We'll do this by pointing not to my own writings, but to what the Church herself says about justification, grace and works.

In terms of Justification:

1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:⁴⁰

• But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.⁴¹ (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

We believe when it comes to Grace:

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.⁴⁶

1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an "adopted son" he can henceforth call God "Father," in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.

1998 This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God's gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.⁴⁷ (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

When it comes to merit, we profess:

2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. the fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God's gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us "co-heirs" with Christ and worthy of obtaining "the promised inheritance of eternal life."⁶⁰ The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness.⁶¹ "Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due.... Our merits are God's gifts."⁶²

Nor is this merely a late change as some might accuse.  The Catechism of the Council of Trent  of the 16th century says:

For the grace of Christ is seen to abound more, inasmuch as it communicates to us not only what He merited and paid of Himself alone, but also what, as Head, He merited and paid in His members, that is, in holy and just men. Hence it can be seen how such great weight and dignity belong to the good actions of the pious. For Christ our Lord continually infuses His grace into the devout soul united to Him by charity, as the head to the members, or as the vine through the branches. This grace always precedes, accompanies and follows our good works, and without it we can have no merit, nor can we at all satisfy God.  (emphasis added)

I believe this evidence should be enough to demonstrate that we believe our justification, grace and merits come from God and (if one follows the links) even the good we do is made possible by God.

I think it should be clear that the person who claims the Catholic believes God "owes" us anything on the grounds we "earn" our salvation by doing works slanders or libels us (depending on whether the accuser speaks or writes).  We have no belief whatsoever about doing [X] amount of works or saying [Y] number of prayers will guarantee us Heaven.  We believe God calls us to be faithful to Him and carry out His commands out of love for Him.  Christ has said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15).  In a relationship of love, a person doesn't ask "How much do I have to do?"  The person who loves does what he or she does as an expression of love.

The Implication

Now the person who repeats such a claim may not be acting with malice.  He or she may sincerely believe what is said against us.

That does not let the individual off the hook however.  To repeat a claim without finding out if it is true is unjust indeed.  If I should repeat that Jones is a murderer simply on the grounds I have been told this, I am to blame for repeating a slander if Jones is innocent.

There's also another serious implication here: Protestantism has at least one false premise in its rejection of Catholicism.

Think of it.  One of the reasons of the rejection of the Catholic Church was the belief that the Church put a person on an endless and futile quest to do "enough" to earn salvation.  Yet we don't believe what we are accused of.  Thus one justification for breaking away is… unjustified.  In placing Sola Fide in opposition to "Works Alone" a straw man fallacy is committed.

1. The Catholic Church Holds [X]
2. The Anti-Catholic presents the Church as holding [Y] (a distortion of [X])
3. Position [Y] is attacked.
4. The illusion is The Catholic Church has been refuted on [X]

The truth is, the attack on [Y] is irrelevant.  The Church teaching is [X] and it is [X] which needs to be examined.

To continue to accuse the Church of [Y] is to slander or libel the Church, whether through malice or negligence.

negligence

■ n. failure to take proper care over something.

† Law breach of a duty of care which results in damage.

Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.